Understandably, I am not able to consider every detail of how govt money is doled out but I think my idea would be a big improvement to how the system now works. I think that anyone who gets money from the govt be it welfare, food stamps or unemployment should be required to submit a resume of their skills, education and experience. Then any govt agency or non profit would be able to hire anyone in this pool of recipients for a rate that would determine how many ours that individual is required to work. They receive 100 dollars and the job is rated at 10 dollars they would have to work up to 10 hours or lose their benefits. Mothers with kids, well hire some from this group to staff day cares and you have a place for the mothers to place their kids when they work. Storm or disaster efforts would be aided by all these people who would have to work for the money they get. Cities could then do some of the things that makes their town nicer but are too expensive like picking up litter or cleaning the outside of their buildings or cutting the grass on abandoned properties.

My guess is that you would see a dramatic drop in the number of people who stay unemployed until their benefits are about to run out. And a big drop in those who view Welfare as the easiest job that a person can have. Anyone who thinks that everyone who gets a govt check for sitting at home really is desperate to find a job is delusional. For many unemployment is like a paid vacation and for some it is a logical decision. If a job they can get only pays a little more than they are getting to sit at home well for some and perhaps many it is much easier to do nothing and get paid for it.

I also had an idea for that bad idea of stimulus that they did. They sent out money to everyone and found that many just used it to pay off some credit cards or put it away in savings in case things got worse. I think that it would be a simple thing to just issue credit cards that had limits like flexible spending cards have. The limit would be that it had to be used to buy goods or services that are made in the USA. US companies would get their products certified and the card could only be used to buy certain certified goods. The money gets spent and the products are all of US origin or it goes to US contractors.

I realize that idea might not be as easy as I seem to imply but I think it very similar to how a flexible spending card works and it would at the very least insure that the money that they hand out is spent and that ti goes toward the maximum benefit inside of the US.

I guess I think that the things the govt does is intentionally confusing so that they can lie to the people about how great it is and how it helps them while at the same time making sure that the money goes to those who will support their time in office.

I looked at the way the money was spent in NE PA during the one round of stimulus and it was clearly a total waste and nothing more than a political pay off. For example during the dead of winter they put some water lines in. At that time of year it is difficult to dig and since these lines go down the middle of the street the roads were destroyed. Soil compaction is difficult if not impossible so that when things start to thaw well any patching they did to the roads was just a mess. But these contractors spent the money before the time expired and they of course were always those who supported the politicians in the area.

Well, not to rain on your parade, but why would I want to get out and do any of these menial jobs for? My check from SSA is the fly in the ointment. I worked and was required to pay into the SSA for my older age benefit. At the start of this benefit, it was never classified as an entitlement but now it has been renamed as one. I have worked since I retired but could not now. So, what do I get? Before the SSA started this so called benefit, my great-grandma went from relative to relative and stayed with some of her grown children until she thought she wore her welcome out. Her husband died first. They farmed all their lives and raised whatever they ate. I well remember the old house they lived in before granddad passed. When this benefit started, it seemed like a good thing but you see how that bright idea has deterioated under some of the scum in politics can't keep their hands off of designated funds. Now, we are all told that it will run out by a certain time, yet what will happen to the funds that are being paid into it now? Are the ones paying into the SSA now paying for the errors of the idiots in Washington? How will their monies be recouped for them?

So, basically, what I get out of your proposal is that all entitled people drawing a check should be assessed as to their work background and paid a nominal wage compared to what it should be paid in order to draw any check at all from the government. That's whether you worked and paid SS taxes or not. You see where I'm coming from on this? After all of these years of it working the way it was planned, now they want us to work for it? It wasn't enough to pay taxes on it all of those years? Just another punishment if anything like that is ever enacted in the present scheme of things. Of course there's another way they might accomplish something like this. They could round up everybody older than 62 and gas us, then they could start over and make everybody work that could walk or gas them too, no benefit for working and paying taxes all of your lives. Just work until you drop or get shoveled into a ditch somewhere.

Didn't mean to sound irate but I'm speaking solely on the side of the SS recipients.

I don't see how some folks just sit back and wait on handouts either. What do they have to look foward to? Whatever any of us draw, it is not near enough to cover our expenses. Unless you allocated so much of your pay when you worked for programs to help you in your old age, you would find that SS is a mere pittance to what is needed.

Logged

.If you want to lead the orchestra, you must turn your back to the crowd Forbes

Oddly enough, they label Social Security an entitlement - which is correct - IF YOU'VE PAID INTO THE FUND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FROM IT - easy enough to understand. What I don't understand, is why they label all these other government giveaways as "entitlements" - as if you're entitled to receive freebies from the Feds for simply existing. One would think that in labeling SS an "entitlement", along with all these other programs, they're simply trying to muddy the waters.

Logged

"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Obviously we should separate SS from other payments such as unemployment, welfare and food stamps. For the latter group the governement should require their time for the benefits. If someone is drawing unemployment they should be actively looking for a job or show up for daily activity. With local governments being strapped for revenues these folks could assist with jobs on a local level. I realize this will never happen, but if someone is being given something the provider is also entitled to their time.

So sorry but I do not include SSA in this discussion and never meant to imply that I was talking about that. All that I am really talking about are those things that they hand out to people who are getting money because they are not working. Unemployment is in a sense paid for because of the labor of the individual but most is paid by the employer.

I do not think that I ever mentioned SS although the Dem's like to include them when it comes to govt entitlements. I think that is why they fight so hard when there is any suggestion that an individual should be able to manage the money that they send into the fund. I honestly think that if all the money that I contributed as well as what the employer contributed were managed well my retirement would be far better than it would on SS alone.

Sorry to get you so worked up to write such a long reply but I never ever thought that someone would think that I consider SS a hand out.

Darth Fife

Oddly enough, they label Social Security an entitlement - which is correct - IF YOU'VE PAID INTO THE FUND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FROM IT - easy enough to understand. What I don't understand, is why they label all these other government giveaways as "entitlements" - as if you're entitled to receive freebies from the Feds for simply existing. One would think that in labeling SS an "entitlement", along with all these other programs, they're simply trying to muddy the waters.

Sorry to disappoint you but, according to the SCOTUS, you are not "entitled" to one red cent of the money you paid into the Social Security ponzi scheme.

Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

So sorry but I do not include SSA in this discussion and never meant to imply that I was talking about that. All that I am really talking about are those things that they hand out to people who are getting money because they are not working. Unemployment is in a sense paid for because of the labor of the individual but most is paid by the employer.

I do not think that I ever mentioned SS although the Dem's like to include them when it comes to govt entitlements. I think that is why they fight so hard when there is any suggestion that an individual should be able to manage the money that they send into the fund. I honestly think that if all the money that I contributed as well as what the employer contributed were managed well my retirement would be far better than it would on SS alone.

Sorry to get you so worked up to write such a long reply but I never ever thought that someone would think that I consider SS a hand out.

Well, you still don't get my drift. I didn't mean for you to take SS as a hand out. The government is now classifying it as a handout and I'm surprised you haven't known that. Why would we be treated any differently by the government in regards to say a welfare recipient? Do you think that there should be a different set of rules for each group? Brother, wouldn't that raise a stink amongst some of our people? I can just hear jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton already.

Some of your thoughts were ok by me but you have to include ALL entitlements.

edited by taxed -- fixed broken quoting

« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 06:39:57 PM by taxed »

Logged

.If you want to lead the orchestra, you must turn your back to the crowd Forbes

Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

Off course that's true. But most people have paid into this none existent "Trust Fund" all their working lives. The fact that the politicians took the money and left worthless IOU's is still another point. The point I was making is that, unlike other recipients of government largesse, theoretically Social Security recipients contributed toward their own checks. That makes it unlike other "entitlements".

Logged

"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Nope! Giles explains this much better than all the replies. I especially like his description of how politicians "borrowed from Peter to pay Paul", using our paid in monies until Peter ran out of funds. The monies paid in right now are to catch up the debts they ran up off your and my money. Can you say crooked? This is another reason that we should stop giving money to other countries, we are in the red for the foreseeable futures of our children.

Logged

.If you want to lead the orchestra, you must turn your back to the crowd Forbes

Well, you still don't get my drift. I didn't mean for you to take SS as a hand out. The government is now classifying it as a handout and I'm surprised you haven't known that. Why would we be treated any differently by the government in regards to say a welfare recipient? Do you think that there should be a different set of rules for each group? Brother, wouldn't that raise a stink amongst some of our people? I can just hear jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton already.

Some of your thoughts were ok by me but you have to include ALL entitlements.

edited by taxed -- fixed broken quoting

I think the libs would be up in arms if you make any or all recipients do anything. Last night on Hannity the one guest said it was outrageous to stop people from using their welfare cash cards to get money in a strip club or bar. If you saw it, well it is clear that there are a lot of people that believe that they are some how owed this money because they do not have all the money they think they should have. The guest said he once was a stripper and all of the strippers were on welfare because they did not make enough money. They were kind to him because they never asked if he included all his tips as income which I am sure evades being counted to some extent. But the Peoples need that money.

In my world my idea only applies to those who are getting a check because they do not have a job or earn less than what ever the income level is. So every able bodied person getting that money theoretically would not be in that spot if they had a job. So treat the money as if it were payment for a job. SS is paid when you hit an age which cannot be changed because you are working. It would be nice if you could make me younger by giving me a job but at this point I do not think that is possible.

Back in 1976 I heard something similar to this in one of my sociology classes so it is not a new idea. Looking back I am not surprised what we were told were the consequences of having them do work for the money they receive. They implied that it would cause people to lose their jobs because you would use these people and that making them work was unfair and equated to slavery. I have no doubts that the Libs would see this as an outrage. I would even be OK if instead of work they were enrolled in training or college assuming they were performing at an acceptable level.

I do believe that there are a substantial number of people getting welfare and unemployment that could be working if they wanted too. I do not deny that there are a number of people collecting on either that are there through circumstances of life. As one more benefit it would also reduce the number of cheats who collect a check while doing work under the table.

I think I get your drift when you say that the Dem's and Libs of the world would be hysterical and I assume that the GOP would be afraid of being called heartless if they pushed something even a little like this. So I have no belief that we as a nation will ever require them to earn this money in some way. I think that is truly a shame.